A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Limb Salvage With Intrepid Dynamic Exoskeletal Orthosis Versus Transtibial Amputation: A Comparison of Functional Gait Outcomes. | LitMetric

Limb Salvage With Intrepid Dynamic Exoskeletal Orthosis Versus Transtibial Amputation: A Comparison of Functional Gait Outcomes.

J Orthop Trauma

*Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Naval Hospital Oak Harbor, Oak Harbor, WA; †Gait Analysis Laboratory, Department of Physical and Occupational Therapy, Chiropractic Services, and Sports Medicine, Naval Medical Center San Diego, San Diego, CA; ‡BADER Consortium, University of Delaware, Newark, DE; and §Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Naval Medical Center San Diego, San Diego, CA.

Published: December 2016

Objectives: To determine if there is a difference in functional gait outcomes between patients with limb injuries treated with either transtibial amputation or limb preservation with the Intrepid Dynamic Exoskeletal Orthosis.

Design: Retrospective prognostic study.

Setting: Tertiary referral military hospital.

Patients: This study included 10 transtibial amputees and 10 limb preservation patients using the Intrepid Dynamic Exoskeletal Orthosis who were matched by body mass index after excluding for nontraumatic, proximal ipsilateral, contralateral, spine, or traumatic brain injuries. Transtibial amputation patients were also excluded if they did not have a gait study between 6 and 12 months after independent ambulation. Limb preservation were excluded if they did not complete the "Return to Run" program.

Interventions: An observational study of functional outcomes using instrumented gait analysis.

Outcome Measures: Spatiotemporal, kinetic (vertical ground reaction force), unified deformable power, work, and efficiency.

Results: Limb preservation patients walked with a significantly slower cadence (P = 0.036) and spent less time on their affected limb in stance (P = 0.045), and longer in swing (P = 0.019). Amputees had significantly increased maximum positive power in both limbs (P = 0.004 and P = 0.029) and increased maximum negative power on the unaffected limb (P = 0.035). Amputees had significantly increased positive and negative work in the affected limb (P = 0.0009 and P = 0.014) and positive work in the unaffected limb (P = 0.042). There was no significant difference in the kinetic data or efficiency.

Conclusions: Limb preservation patients spend less time on their affected limb as a percentage of the gait cycle. The unified deformable power demonstrated more dynamic gait in amputees, with peak values closer to normative data.

Level Of Evidence: Therapeutic level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0000000000000688DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

limb preservation
20
limb
12
intrepid dynamic
12
dynamic exoskeletal
12
transtibial amputation
12
preservation patients
12
exoskeletal orthosis
8
functional gait
8
gait outcomes
8
unified deformable
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!